I read about a 2007 U.S. Department of Justice study that analyzed the prevalence of sexual misconduct in state and federal prisons and found that the majority of perpetrators were female staff who sexually assaulted male inmates. (By law, prisoners lack the capacity to consent to sex with prison staff.)

Female prison guards would rather have sex with convicts than have sex with me.

I then took a walk around my neighborhood and was accosted by a homeless guy with his female in tow who begged for change for “me and my woman.”

The homeless guy is getting laid, but I’m not.

I own a business that provides jobs. I created those jobs out of nothing. I know how to create things, build things, and fix things. Without guys like me, females would be shivering in dark, dank caves, wondering why there’s nothing to eat.

Feminists say that I’m pathetic, which is like a tapeworm calling its host pathetic. I say that a society in which females value convicts and the homeless more than they value a man who creates jobs is not only a pathetic society but a dying society.

Let me be the first to spit on its grave.

And let me be the second. Feminists believe that beta males like you – and that term is not an insult, my good man – will continue passively providing all the services that make their lives so pleasant while they have fun whoring for criminals.

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they’ll take the election in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994….

It’s no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and healthcare. Among whites, 71% of men and 56% of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama’s brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ’s than FDR’s, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, healthcare and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs — healthcare work, teaching and the like — rather than the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a “he-cession.” Men account for at least 7 of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Blue-collar men have suffered 57% of the job losses. And blue-collar white men, who make up only 11% of the workforce, constitute 36% of those who have lost jobs. In total, nearly half of the recession’s casualties are white men, having held 46% of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term “angry white male” or “angry white men” was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

A top economic adviser to President Obama has told a congressional panel the billions of dollars in the proposed economic stimulus plan should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn’t go to just “white male construction workers” or the highly skilled.

Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Clinton, was speaking to the House Steering and Policy Committee Jan. 7 about funding infrastructure projects across the nation.

“It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very important and good way of stimulating the economy. The challenge will be to do it quickly, to find projects that can be done that will have a high social return, that also can be done with the greatest speed possible,” Reich said.

“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers,” he said.

Feminists will no doubt be furious at me for saying this, but white males are people too.

Authorities said Wednesday that they are “astounded” by the heroic actions of a 7-year-old boy who hid with his younger sister in a bathroom and called 911 while armed robbers broke into his home and threatened his parents.

Only 7 and he kept a cool head in a terrifying situation and probably saved the lives of his entire family.

By making it more challenging for whores to swindle unsuspecting men into supporting other men’s bastards.

Two years after filing the suit that sought to end his paternal rights, Mike is still irate about the fix he’s in. “I pay child support to a biologically intact family,” Mike told me, his voice cracking with incredulity. “A father and mother, married, who live with their own child. And I pay support for that child. How ridiculous is that?”

They quote a bimbo lawyerette as saying,

“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband,” says Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are. My parents are the ones who went through all the crap I gave them growing up.”

I doubt she is actually as stupid as she is here pretending. There is a big difference between going through the gauntlet of bullshit they put you through these days before letting you adopt a child, and being the victim of a fraud by a slut who cheated on you. She knows it, she just wants to help her fellow whores steal from men.

Roissy says: “Would you die for this country that so despises you? Would you care if women who aren’t related to you or fucking you got raped? Would you care if *any* woman got raped?”

Which is the point I keep making when I denounce feminism. Feminists treat men like shit, they train other women to treat men like shit, they vote for politicians who will pass laws that treat men like shit. Kick a friendly dog enough times and eventually you have a mean dog. Feminists give men lots of good reasons not to give a shit about the most basic well-being of women. What the fuck do they imagine is going to happen to us as a result?

Two close relatives have been in the hospital and I have been much too stressed out to blog.

Today I decided I’d better at least say hello and approve any comments that were waiting. Dudes, the interesting and supportive comments waiting for me really gave me a boost. Thank you. I was thinking it might take me a few weeks to get back to this blog, not to mention the three brilliant articles I have planned for the Spearhead, but with that kind of encouragement, maybe I can do some blogging this weekend! Thank you!

For now, just one link: The Wifely Duty. It’s about heterosexual bed death.

Those of us who read PUA blogs perhaps need to remember that “beta” is not an insult. Yeah, they’re unlucky in a primitive society such as modern America and Europe, in which the female of the species has been returned to cavewoman morals, but there’s nothing inherently bad about being one.

A mangina is not a beta male, by the way. Beta males are useful; manginas are not. Indeed, given the way they encourage bad female behavior, they are actively destructive.

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot.

They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages.

And by the way? I have never, not once, cheated on anybody I was with.

One can spend a long time in jail in the U.S. without ever being charged with a crime.

It happened to H. Beatty Chadwick, a former Philadelphia-area lawyer, who has been behind bars for nearly 14 years without being charged. And this didn’t take place in some 3rd world dictatorship or tyrannical government like China or Iran it was done right here in the U.S.

No trial ever took place, Chadwick has never been allowed to face his accuser and no jury ever heard any evidence against him.

In 1994, during his divorce proceedings, a Delaware County judge (yes a county Judge) held Mr. Chadwick in civil contempt for failing to put $2.5 million in a court-controlled account. He says he lost the money in bad investments; his wife’s attorney claimed he had hidden it offshore. In April 1995, Mr. Chadwick was arrested and detained. Nearly 14 years later, Mr. Chadwick, who suffers from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, is still in jail — even after a retired judge was hired to help locate the money, and failed.

Roissy wants to believe that the man has the money hidden and is just being stubborn. I don’t; I think the money doesn’t exist. So he has been jailed for 14 years without a trial for not handing over nonexistent money. Which that tramp has no right to anyway. Thank goodness we are rid of patriarchal marriage!

Here is what I propose in the line of more civilized divorce laws:

1. Divorce should be very difficult to get. As it used to be before feminism.

2. A woman who seeks a divorce – and it’s nearly always the woman who does so – has no right to one cent of alimony or property settlement.

3. If the man seeks the divorce because he can’t stand living with the harpy or because he wants to marry someone else, then alimony or a property settlement are appropriate. If the man seeks the divorce because the tramp has been unfaithful, she has no right to one penny from him.

4. If the wife has been working outside the home while they were married, she has no right to alimony or a property settlement, since clearly she is independent and can take care of herself just like a man can.

5. Unless there is solid proof that this man is a seriously bad guy, i.e. a violent alcoholic or something of that nature, custody of the children should default to the father. A woman who wants to keep her children should have to endure also keeping their father. Click on the “stepfathers” tag to this post to see why. The most dangerous person on earth to a child is “Mommy’s boyfriend”. (Mommy herself comes in second.) Mothers will not hesitate to allow any man who makes their ginas tingle murder their children. Mother custody is pretty much accessory to infanticide. Children need their fathers to protect them from their mothers’ boytoys. And from their mothers.

Whiskey’s discussed this issue before. Encouragingly, it turns out that a lot of women hate the ads that depict men as morons. “If you want to sell stuff to me, don’t tell me the man I married is an idiot!” they say. “That’s an insult to my judgment!” It warms my heart to be able to say something good about women for a change.

One of the commercials posted is about an overly elaborate wedding, incidentally.

But the better earnings, status, social conditions, and opportunities afforded women have not come without a cost, all across the West. If women are hard-wired to be hypergamous, i.e. desire men of greater power and status than themselves, this would make “kitchen bitches” irrelevant and explain our brave new world of single mothers, rotating bad boys, and disdain, shown over and over again, for fatherhood and men who embrace it. It would also explain the success of the institution of marriage in the only class that still sustains it: high powered men making millions every year and women who work only part-time in jobs that pay little but give prestige, i.e. the Non Governmental Organizations, the NGOs, like Greenpeace or Amnesty International or Heal the Bay.

In “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” it was eerie how the literally empowered women treated men. Written by avowed feminist Joss Whedon, Buffy and her super-powered female friends pursued, non-stop, dangerous bad boys with superpowers, who were their superiors. Character, morality, and duty meant nothing, only the thrill of violent, dangerous, super-powered men. Perhaps the most illustrative moment came when Buffy’s second vampire boyfriend, “Spike” raped her, and she fell in love with him and (implied off-screen sex) with him again. [Star Sarah Michelle Gellar hated that particular storyline and feuded with series creator and show-runner Whedon over it.]

Interesting. A while back, I came across an essay by a Buffy fan arguing that the series was anti-male. And these essays were by women who were apparently feminists!

Not long ago, the Editrix asked my opinion on why American weddings have become so extravagant. My guess is that it’s a combination of our bad modern habit of indulging women and our prosperity. Those absurd weddings will stop now that we’re in a recession which may yet turn into a depression.

I think there’s one more reason that I just thought of today: it’s because people are getting married when they’re older. Back when girls got engaged when they were still living with their parents and their parents paid for the weddings, the purse strings were held by people with years of experience in saying “no” to the bride. Not to mention the prudence of mature years. Nowadays, the bride and groom themselves are likely to be paying for the wedding. This means that if he protests at any expenditure, his betrothed is likely to make it an issue: “Are you saying that money is more important to you than I am?” or some such. Since the poor guy is in love with her, else he wouldn’t have proposed, he has to cave in. Your parents are still your parents even if they won’t fork over $15,000 for wedding flowers. Unless they were very bad parents, they’ve proven over years that they love her and will do a lot for her, including saying “no” when it’s necessary. Unlike a fiance’s, a parent’s position in her life and heart don’t depend on giving in to this extravagance.

Seems like there’s a lot to be said for restoring the custom of girls passing from their parents’ to their husband’s care.

I hasten to add that the outrageously expensive weddings you read about are not the norm over here. They are pretty common, though. Here’s a fun “six degrees of separation” factoid: my father worked with a woman who got to go to the wedding of Demi Moore and Bruce Willis because the woman’s cousin was Demi’s hairdresser. Even then I thought it was silly to invite the entire extended family of your hairdresser to your wedding.

I decided to see if I could find any better insights on the excessive price of weddings via google. The main thing I discovered is that the words “overpriced weddings” bring up nearly one million hits.

I also found some “letters to the editor” on a Salon.com article, one of which I thought was worth quoting:

I can hear the thoughts forming. “More brides need to buck this stupid custom of having a big wedding.”

Oh, like that works. I know women who tried to fight this custom.

They wanted simple white dresses and got dubbed bridezillas because they went to 12 dress shops looking for one without a cathedral train that they could pee in with the assistance of no more than two bridesmaids.

They wanted fun, outdoor, informal venues and found them. Then got dubbed bridezillas when they first wept over the cost of transporting food, tables and chairs to these venues and then later snarled at others because for the premium prices they were paying they wanted perfection.

They wanted small intimate bridal parties and got called bridezillas for not inviting their first cousins once removed, because it was surely pure selfishness keeping those girls out of the wedding party when they had been flower girls in their first cousins’ wedding 20 years ago.

They tried to limit the family and friends to 50 and after screaming matches from both sets of families in which the term “bridezilla” was tossed around freely, they wound up with seating charts for 300.

They try desination weddings, only to be hit with the spector of an expected Reception.

There’s more, but I did think it deserved mention that there’s a lot of pressure on engaged couples to do things on a grand scale, and that because of all the (true) stories one hears, it doesn’t take much to be labeled a bridezilla.

You know, I remember my parents watching the royal wedding (of Prince Charles and Diana) on TV, but I was uninterested and was baffled that everyone else was making such a big deal over it. Come to think of it, I remember that a couple of months earlier, in math class I was doodling a picture of a woman in a hoop skirt, and the girl next to me asked, “Is that Lady Di?” “Who?” I asked.

I wonder if part of the reason for today’s decadent excessive weddings is that a lot of girls saw the royal wedding while they were in the midst of puberty and imprinted on it?

Considering that the mass of marriages are going about the way Charles and Diana’s did, maybe it’s time to stop using them as a model.

Everybody’s supposed to have a battle buddy in the army, and females are supposed to have one to go to the latrines with, or to the showers – that’s so you don’t get raped by one of the men on your own side.

But because I was the only female there, I didn’t have a battle buddy. My battle buddy was my gun and my knife.

During my first few months in Iraq, my sergeant assaulted and harassed me so much I couldn’t take it any more. So I decided to report him.

But when I turned him in, they said, ‘The one common factor in all these problems is you. Don’t see this as a punishment, but we’re going to have you transferred.’

Then that same sergeant was promoted right away. I didn’t get my promotion for six months.

They transferred me from Mosul to Rawah. There were over 1,500 men in the camp and less than 18 women, so it wasn’t any better there than the first platoon I was in. I was fresh meat to the hungry men there.

I was less scared of the mortar rounds that came in every day than I was of the men who shared my food.

I never would drink late in the day, even though it was so hot, because the Port-a-Johns were so far away it was dangerous.

So I’d go for 16 hours in 140-degree heat and not drink. I just ate Skittles to keep my mouth from being too dry.

I collapsed from dehydration so often I have IV track lines from all the times they had to re-hydrate me.

Isn’t it horrible of sexist pigs like me to want these women to be denied equal opportunity in military deployment?

The poor woman’s trying desperately to cling to some shred of feminism, but she’s honest enough to admit a few things:

The feminist critique, for example, has totally remade elementary-level education, where female decision-makers prevail: the construction of male hierarchies in the schoolyard is often redirected nowadays for fear of “bullying,” with boys and girls alike expected to “share” and “process” their emotions. But many educators have begun to argue that such intervention in what may be a hardwired aspect of “boy-ness” can lead to boys’ academic underperformance relative to girls, and to more frequent diagnoses of behavioral problems, attention deficit disorder, and so on….

Now a spate of scientific analyses, based on brain imaging technology and new anthropological and evolutionary discoveries, suggests that we may have had our heads in the sand, and that we must be willing to grapple with what seem to be at least some genuine, measurable differences between the sexes.

It’s probably no surprise that most of these bullies are men, as a survey by the Workplace Bullying Institute, an advocacy group, makes clear. But a good 40 percent of bullies are women. And at least the male bullies take an egalitarian approach, mowing down men and women pretty much in equal measure. The women appear to prefer their own kind, choosing other women as targets more than 70 percent of the time.

“I’ve been sabotaged so many times in the workplace by other women, I finally left the corporate world and started my own business,” said Roxy Westphal, who runs the promotional products company Roxy Ventures Inc. in Scottsdale, Ariz. She still recalls the sting of an interview she had with a woman 30 years ago that “turned into a one-person firing squad” and led her to leave the building in tears.

Earlier this year, I published an article in City Journal called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.” The piece elicited a roaring flood of mailed and blogged responses, mostly from young men who didn’t much care for its title (a reference to Claude Brown’s 1965 novel Manchild in the Promised Land) or its thesis: that too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with South Park reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie fart scenes.

It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that the piece inspired as proof positive of the child-man’s existence. But the truth is that my correspondents’ objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.

Really? How on earth could any man have possibly reached such a conclusion?

In her interviews with 100 unmarried, college-educated young men and women, Jillian Straus, author of Unhooked Generation, discovered that a lot of women had “personal scripts”—explicit ideas about how a guy should act, such as walking his date home or helping her on with her coat.

She discusses the PUA community for several paragraphs.

Men are convinced that they are no worse—and probably a good deal better—than women in making these calculations. With good Darwinian logic, though, they believe that women tend to do their reckoning on the basis of wallet size rather than pulchritude. “Girls are really good at that kind of math,” one jaded twentysomething man writes to me about his entry-level salary. In a review of the movie Sex and the City, the English author Toby Young remembers the five years he had lived in New York: “Attractive single girls not only dropped their ‘dates’ at the slightest whiff of a bigger, better deal, they routinely betrayed their girlfriends, too.” (As his only half-facetious name suggests, Carrie’s Mr. Big is pure alpha—rich and, as if proving the conclusions of recovering nice guys everywhere, a bit of a jerk.)

Nowhere does she admit that the behavior of women in recent decades is responsible for male self-defense from it, but she at least gives MRAs a fair hearing for it.

A generation ago Americans undertook a revolutionary experiment to redefine marriage. Where historically men and women had sought a loving bond, largely centered on the rearing of children, the new arrangement called for an intimate—and provisional—union of two adults. Now, as Kay Hymowitz argues in Marriage and Caste in America, the results of this experiment separating marriage from childrearing are in, and they turn out to be bad news not only for children but also, in ways little understood, for the country as a whole. The family revolution has played a central role in a growing inequality and high rates of poverty, even during economic good times. The family upheaval has hit African-Americans especially hard, Ms. Hymowitz shows, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan had famously predicted it would. While for decades feminists and academics toyed with the myth of the strong single black mother supported by kinship networks, black men drifted into fatherhood without being husbands, without even becoming part of a family, while black children were left behind. When Americans began their family revolution, they forgot to consider what American marriage was designed to do: it ordered lives by giving the young a meaningful life script. It supported middle-class foresight, planning, and self-sufficiency. And it organized men and women around “The Mission”— nurturing their children’s cognitive, emotional, and physical development. More than anything, Ms. Hymowitz writes, it is The Mission that separates middle-class kids—who for all their overscheduling are doing very well indeed—from their less-parented and lower-achieving peers. In fact our great family experiment threatens to turn what the founders imagined as an opportunity-rich republic of equal citizens into a hereditary caste society.

One soldier returned from Iraq in 1991 after spending half a year as POW and got arrested for non-payment of child support while a POW in Iraq. A man who spent 10 years in prison for a crime he proved he did not commit was still on the hook for child support for the time he was incarcerated. As was a man whose DNA test proved he’s not even the father. Even being in a coma is not a defense, as at least one man found out.

You lose your driver’s license, your professional licenses, liens are placed on you and your bank accounts. If you make any money, the wages are garnished. If you don’t find a job quick to pay off your child support debt, you’ll be thrown in jail for up to half a year. When you get out, you’ll still owe the money.

If your parents allow you to sleep on the couch in their living room, it is considered income and you must pay child support from it.

To make sure your life is completely ruined, if you marry again, your second wife will also have to pay your first one because the support is counted based on “family income”. So if your first wife is vindictive enough, she can prevent you from ever re-marrying. See, and you thought you were divorced and free to do as you pleased!

As this article points out, even if a DNA test absolves you of paternity, you might not be in the clear. One of these days, I might find myself the object of a paternity suit. How long do they think men will tolerate this? It can’t last forever.

Some feminist bimbo wrote claiming that women had invented a long list of things. One commenter patiently explains, “I can poke holes in this list of items ‘invented’ by women. This is actually a list of patents held by women NOT a list of original research and developed by women.”

The list is hilarious. Seems the life raft was invented by a woman in the late nineteenth century. For millenia before that, people who fell off ships just drowned, while the poor dumb men stood on deck wishing there were some way of putting something in the water that might float and give the drowners something to grab onto.

Included on the list is the ironing board and the chocolate chip cookie. No, really. Also alphabet blocks. As one commenter says,

What the hell are alphabet blocks? The things kids play with? Congratulations, womankind. I guess my gender will have to content ourselves with the fact that we invented THE ALPHABET!

Their insults seem to culminate in dire predictions: that my husband will leave me and no one else will ever want to marry me, telling all women that if my way is the way no man will want to marry them, that they will be single mothers, that there will be mass killings (seriously?) – interesting that they associate the threat of not being married with the threat of murder.

She says “seriously?” Suddenly I understand feminists so much better. They imagine that they can indulge in all the destructive, self-centered, hurtful behavior they wish, and men will not be inspired to similar destructiveness and self-centeredness. Apparently they think men have far more self-control and compassion for others than women do.

Because what is a woman, after all, unless a man owns her? If I don’t have a man how can my life have value?

Remember the quotations from her blog I posted a few days ago? They indicate that she doesn’t think she or her life has any value. She said it herself.

It is not so much that I cheat that is their problem, but that I do not obey the man that owns me – and don’t mistake it, this is about ownership. He pays the bills, it is his house – I deny him sex and I fuck other men. But, he should be entitled to sex, after all he pays for it with the wedding ring – I am, to be clear, his object.

This reminded me of a political cartoon I had forgotten. A few years back there was a big kerfluffle in all the editorials and stuff because Republicans were trying to resist attempts to give the shiftless scum on welfare even more of the money that belongs to those who work for it. Naturally, some leftist cartoonist didn’t see that when the money you work for is stolen from you, that makes you a slave. So he drew a cartoon that basically said that when Republicans refuse to let more of their money be stolen and given to those who don’t work for it, their next step is to bring back slavery.

The left believes that being expected to behave morally is slavery. Being expected to fulfill your obligations or fulfill contracts into which you have entered is slavery. Being expected not to harm the people around you is slavery. Basically, any restraint at all upon your behavior is slavery.

Meanwhile, Theodore Dalrymple has written one of his excellent columns on what happens to the children of sluts. “The first was that of Baby P (unnamed for legal reasons), a 17-month-old child done to death by his mother, her boyfriend, and a lodger. Only the fact that it was impossible to tell which of them had actually killed the child prevented their conviction for murder.” And, “The second case involved Shannon Matthews, whose story—what parts of it were then known—I also related previously in City Journal. Earlier this month, her mother Karen went on trial for maltreating her. According to the prosecutor, Karen, who has seven children by five different men and who lives entirely on Social Security, organized the kidnapping, drugging, and sequestration of nine-year-old Shannon, in concert with the uncle of her current boyfriend. It turns out that the object of their plot was to raise $75,000 by public appeal for knowledge of the whereabouts of Shannon, who was later to be released and then “found” by the uncle, who would claim the reward…. Karen Matthews offered to have sex with one of the police officers who came to her house during the search.”

Women like these are why it is so vitally important for the law to continue to protect the rights and prerogatives of husbands. Certainly a pussy-whipped fiance might be besotted or inexperienced enough to espouse feminist notions and promise that he won’t behave like, well, like a husband. But once they’re married and he experiences the reality of marriage to a self-centered tramp, will he be able to resist taking advantage of the authority the law (should) give him? When his children are being neglected and abused, will he not find the justification he needs to break the promise of his foolish youth?